Karma's a bitch

October 22, 2003 2:46 PM

Those of you who added reams of ad-blocking software to your PC's in the last two years, almost solely to block ads for the X10 wireless cam, may be shocked (gasp!) to find out that they weren't paying for the ads the whole time. In a dramatic and satisfying turnaround, X10's ad providers have sued them to the tune of 4.1 million USD. When lamers sue lamers, everyone wins!
posted by poorhaus (12 comments total)

So the guys that pioneered "pop-unders" won 4.1 million? I'm still not satisfied.
posted by 2sheets at 3:02 PM on October 22, 2003

X-10 adds have been around a lot longer than two years. The brothers pioneered pop-under ie. the pop-up doesnt show up untill you close the browser makeing it only slightly less anoying. What I don't understand is this:

"When we found out they weren't paying that bill, we were beyond distraught" .. "These were young guys who had a dream to start a successful company, but X10 looked at their youth and thought they could wipe them out," said Michael Fitzgerald, a lawyer for the Vanderhooks

It is such obvious theatrics there must be a lot more to the story.
posted by stbalbach at 3:38 PM on October 22, 2003

So one bunch of arseholes won a lawsuit against another bunch of arseholes? Nothing changes, the money is still in the hands of arseholes.
posted by dg at 4:22 PM on October 22, 2003

these poor young guys with a dream to start a successful company FAILED TO NOTICE $4 MILLION IN DELINQUENT RECEIVABLES? next dream, please.
posted by quonsar at 4:43 PM on October 22, 2003

"Reams" of software?
posted by freebird at 7:17 PM on October 22, 2003

it was $564,000, not 4million .....

The brothers -- Russell, 26; Chris, 25; and Tim, 22 -- claimed that X10 failed to pay $564,000 in commissions and stole their proprietary technology and business model.
posted by 11235813 at 7:48 PM on October 22, 2003

Now X10.com has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

"Under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, a company typically continues to operate, shielded from creditors, while it reorganizes its finances."

Now, at what point to we annoyed websurfers get to gloat again?
posted by Fofer at 10:45 PM on October 22, 2003

Thankfully, those of us with Firebird forgot about these sort of hucksters a while ago.
posted by will at 10:57 PM on October 22, 2003

Perhaps due to my usual surfing habits, I am not as plagued by pop-ups as some people seem to be. I use Excite all the time, and am always grateful for their use of pop-unders instead of overs. So I'm not unkind towards the inventors of that technique.

X-10 spamed me without mercy for years, before I moved and got a new addy. I had only made a query about one of their products. I am delighted to see x-10 in trouble. A perfect example of a company selling cool gadgets but creating their own negative publicity.
posted by Goofyy at 12:32 AM on October 23, 2003

What's a pop-under/pop-up?
[/Safarismugness]
posted by i_cola at 3:35 AM on October 23, 2003

Thankfully, those of us with Firebird forgot about these sort of hucksters a while ago.

Or Mozilla or Opera or Avant or "perfunctorily carrying out equally disapponiting lives while avoiding any contact with our glowing electronic slavemasters".
posted by wigu at 9:04 AM on October 23, 2003

I had to use IE the other day on someone else's computer and was horrified at the amount of pop-ups and unders that are around. I had forgotten about them, except in a vague "pop-ups bad" kind of way since moving to Mozilla/Firebird. The distraction and general annoyance of these is huge and I welcome any bad things that happen to those who either use them to advertise their products or, even worse, actually create the damned things. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their armpits.
posted by dg at 3:07 PM on October 23, 2003